Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
AJAY MOHAN GOEL
Arun Sen Chand – Appellant
Versus
Mahinder Kumaar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. trial court strikes defence for non-production of ordered documents. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. parties contest application of order 11 rule 21 cpc. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. court examines pleadings and unchallenged production order compliance. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. willful discovery non-compliance justifies striking defence per precedent. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. trial court order upheld; petition dismissed. (Para 20) |
1.By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 09.10.2018, passed by the learned Trial Court, which reads as under:-
Today, ld. Defendant’s counsel has filed copy of gift deed. However, remaining documents at Sr. No.2, 3, 4 and 5 which the defendant was directed to produce has filed his affidavit in which he submitted that original memorandum of family settlement was filed alongwith return under the Ceiling Act more than 45 years ago but the same is not traceable and agreement dated 1.1.1977 is also not traceable. The affidavit is taken on record. Since, the defendant, who had pleaded about agreement dated 1.1.1977 has failed to produce it despite directions of the Court, therefore, h
Trial court justified in striking out defence under Order XI Rule 21 CPC for willful non-compliance with unchallenged order to produce pleaded documents on oath.
Family settlements may not require registration if they do not create or confer any rights in property, maintaining the principle that suits should disclose a cause of action as per Order 7 Rule 11.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party to a suit is entitled to seek production of documents in the custody of the opposing party to prove their alternative remedy for damag....
Non-compliance with an order for discovery of documents under Order 11 Rule 21 of CPC can lead to dismissal of a suit for want of prosecution.
Suit barred due to lack of objection against record of rights; civil court jurisdiction excluded under specific statutory provisions.
A court assessing an application under Order VII Rule 11 is confined to the plaint and its documents, not external assertions or documents.
The appellate court may only admit additional evidence under specific conditions, which were not met by the petitioners, as they failed to demonstrate due diligence in producing the evidence during t....
Non-compliance with Order for Discovery - The defendants' answer to the interrogatories, in the manner it was given, i.e., denying entering into and execution of the Agreement, would attract conseque....
Appellate court cannot admit additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC absent due diligence proof or necessity for judgment; must record reasons; erroneous allowance despite negligence and delay....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
